Re: Cascading Style Sheets

Gregory Houston <> wrote:
>I have noticed a couple benefits of using Netscape's <layer>s tags over
>using CCS positioning. I hope that you might consider taking these into
>consideration when you make the next revision of CCS.

As far as I can tell, points 1 and 3 have to do with
deviations between Netscape's implementation and the CSS spec.
So I agree with you that the benefits may be real, but IMO, they
have to do with Netscape's implementation of CSS, and not with
the CSS spec itself.

>1. I don't have to use <table>s with Netscape's <layer>s. With <layer>s
>if I define a layer as 128 x 128 pixels with a red background, thats
>exactly what I get. But with CCS, nothing will show up until I put some
>content in the layer, and then the red background color will only appear
>around the text. Thus I still have to fool with <table>s if I want to
>use CCS. And ... thus, I'll be sticking with Netscape's <layer> tag
>until this is fixed.

This has to do with how Netscape chose to implement background
color. It appears that they rely on an opaque background
transfer mode when painting text, along with some special
cases for tables and the BODY tag. The net result of this is
that the background color follows the contour of the text
unless the background color is attached to the BODY tag, a
table, a table row, or a table cell. Under IE's implementation,
the background color correctly covers the bounding rect of
an element.

>3. This part I'm not sure about, but so far I have not been able to add
>a background image to my CSS layers. I can do so very easily with
><layer>s, and those background images can be transparent gifs.

According to the spec, it should be possible to add a background
image to any element.


Received on Thursday, 3 July 1997 14:26:09 UTC